Sam '43003' Tanner Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I've had enough. My procrastination has been going on for far too long, so I'm putting my foot down, booting myself up the backside and getting on with something. If I don't follow through with this, I might aswell give up any hope.! On with the good stuff. The plan is for a 50" x 24" N gauge layout in a countryside setting. Trackwork isn't my personal preference, but as the description suggests, this is just an exericse to get something running, so Peco Code 80 Setrack is lined up. The excuse for the gap between the running lines.? The layout is set in the South West, so the route was originally built to broad gauge standards. It's a prototypical excuse for the visual "pitfalls" of Peco Setrack. That's just my opinion however. Scenery is to be decided upon at a later time, but I have a few ideas I shall share in due course. Even if a station is to be included, the fact that a lot of original station buildings remain and some semaphore signalling is still in use, the layout can be based in any era. Another bonus on the route to getting a layout on the go. The attached plan shows the layout idea. What I would ask for is a guide to wiring. I'd like to go for DCC for the sheer simplicity, but DC control might be an idea, so any hints on how to wire the layout for either DC or DCC to give me the option would be most appreciated. More to follow. All the best, Sam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldgunner Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Have you thought about using code-55 finescale? I've got my code-55 flexi to bend to 2nd radius. Most stock will be fine on code-55 too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Have you thought about using code-55 finescale? I've got my code-55 flexi to bend to 2nd radius. Most stock will be fine on code-55 too. The "small" code 55 turnouts will reduce the usable length of the storage at the back considerably. Conversely the big benefit of the code 55 turnouts is the availability of the electrofrog version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTrice Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Sorry, perhaps you meant code 55 for the visible areas only which does make sense visually. It also works out cheaper! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldgunner Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I believe you can mix them, I haven't personally but they should connect. With code 55 you will find it easier to have your running lines closer together, obviously bearing in mind your loading gauge on the sharp bends. I've used both medium and long points on my layout and I find the transitions quite pleasing. I have sharp curves due to the compact nature of the layout, but visual tricks can distract the eye from them (mine are shrouded in trees). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam '43003' Tanner Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 I did consider Code 55, but as Mike pointed out, even the small turnout will reduce the useable length of the storage sidings. To be honest, I'm not overly fussed on the spacings between the running lines. Just so long as it "looks right", then I'll be happy enough just to get something going. It's also a little bit of "Hell. If I can do it with whats available off the shelf, then so can you." The other option is to set the curves out using flexible trackwork, bringing them closer together for a more prototypical look on sceneic section. Disguising the curves is something I've been thinking about. One idea I've had is a road bridge at the start of the curve, say the left hand end, which leads into a cutting and tunnel mouth. That should reduce the sharp radius a wee bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
18B Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Hi, a nice starter layout, may I suggest for the scenery that treather than pin the track to a flat baseboard that you run the two lines along a raised plinth and thus allow perhaps the tunnel mouth to be naturally in a cutting and then then as the land comes forward the natural line goes lower than the rails meaning they are on a gently embankment, thus giving the impression that the line has been built through the landscape, rather than the landscape built up and around the track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Madog Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 As an "excuse" to finally get started, the layout is quite OK, but I am afraid it won´t serve your needs for long. You will get bored pretty soon. With just a little more effort (and space) you could do something like this: Not a lot more, but a little more "spectacular". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
witherbrow Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 i like that very clever! sounds great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam '43003' Tanner Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Thanks for the ideas Ulrich. Certainly something to think about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UP844 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Hi Sam As 18B posted, if you are going for a simple trains in scenery approach you may find it helps to raise the trackbed an inch or so above the baseboard level. The ground level dipping below the tracks will mean you can also have a bridge under the line which always looks good on a scenic layout. Nothing spectacular, just a country lane or an occupational cattle creep will look better than trying to get one of Brunels viaducts into the picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted February 5, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 5, 2012 Something you want to consider if you want to use some of the newer steam locos is that they don't like set track points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Madog Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Sam, I don´t know whether you have already accumulated sufficient track, if not, I can only recommend to change to Kato Unitrack. It is very reliable, but worth the extra money. With just a little effort, you can make it look a lot more realistic. I paint the track in a dark brown colour, using a rattle can, and re-ballast it using fine N scale ballast. Looks a lot better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.